Delusions bizarre enough or auditory hallucinations are enough for a diagnosis by themselves.

Youtube "schizophrenia disorganized speech" or something similar to see people who are clearly suffering from the disease but may not be hallucinating.

Schizophrenia is like cancer - so many different types of the disease all under one big umbrella term. At it's simplest, it's a disease that presents in your early 20's and eats away at grey matter in the brain, so it's very real - not a hogwash diagnosis like some would people assume given the distrust of anything psychology-related by the general public.

End of quote.

"Eats away grey matter in the brain" - That would be Alzheimer. Disorganised speech, avolia, and so on and so forth are symptoms that can be faked, should a psychiatrist so wish. Not to mention that my spelling of Swedish has been characterised by some - it is actually the old spelling, as British spelling vs American for English language, along with sometimes aa, ae, oe for å, ä, ö - as "disorganised language" and "incomprehensible".

Other comment/exhibit B:

As a mere psychology student, my personal opinion is that the definition of schizophrenic has been stretched as far as possible here. Like you say, schizophrenia is generally considered to have a biological origin, with both genetic and physiological components. Breivik refused a brain scan, so it's impossible to say if he had the physiological components, but I strongly doubt it.

What "everyone" was thinking based on his manifesto, was probably Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which also can lead to strong delusional ideas, but which rarely leads to "legal insanity" in court. The general grandiose nature of his delusions is typical for NPD, and his amount of planning and clearmindedness, are very atypical for the schizophrenia diagnosis.

The european classification of mental disorders does not include narcissistic personality disorder, so maybe that is why this kind of option was not considered.

For me (again, just a simple psychology student) the conclusion of the evaluation seems, to be honest, completely idiotic, but the long-term impact of this type of judgement might be better. (life-sentence, discrediting Breivik as a political figure, and so on)

End of second quote.

Some people who are psychiatrists would like to do two things at once:

a) enlarge the scope of disorders that may be "treated" by locking someone up (changing a frontier from Breivik on Narcissistik side of border to same Breivik on Schizophrenic side of the border);

b) make the public afraid of people with such diagnoses (it is not logical to say "if a terrorist is schizophrenic, then this schizophrenic is probably a terrorist", but the logic of suspicion works that way) and at same time prepare same public to assume a possibility of such a diagnosis in someone perfectly coherent.

Note that the man - a psychology student - who is honest about diagnosis being bosh is less honest about what should be done: For me (again, just a simple psychology student) the conclusion of the evaluation seems, to be honest, completely idiotic, but the long-term impact of this type of judgement might be better. (life-sentence, discrediting Breivik as a political figure, and so on). Are false diagnoses OK, just because they stop someone from getting influence in the future? Are psychiatrists maybe suffering collectively from some thing that might be considered bizarre and grandiose ideas? Could they, possibly, have some kind of collective - would they call it Narcissism? Have they unlimited ambition?

I write this because:

a) I have already once been in prison;

b) it was because I defended myself against psychiatry, notably against the policeman helping to lock me up;

c) that was 1998. February. 5th, Sts Agatha and Dorothy. For what it is worth, it was also before the Kosova war started an escalation of mutual distrust between Muslim and Christian world. And also before that war, I, who had not gone out of my way to upset Muslims, was deliberately set in a prison block with three Muslims and one ex-Muslim in such a manner as to make it impossible with the light of my Christian conscience to avoid it totally.

There is a difference between prejudice and justice. Killing a man on a scaffold, because he has killed 77 people, or however many they were, is justice. Locking a man up in hospitals because he has "grandiose ideas" is prejudice. Before trying to do that to Breivik - he is still not judged - psychiatrists did that to Hemingway. And a few other talented people. Of course, you can argue that Hemingway deserved it for being on the wrong side of the Spanish Civil War. I do not see that anyone deserves lies. I do not see that anyone deserves pseudodiagnoses. And when this happened, he was not exactly doing any harm in Spain, it was already in the US.

Returning to my case is it just tough luck that: a) after the shooting I did (nobody died), it is arranged that I get Muslims as enemies, and also arranged that Muslims are given cause to distrust westerners? b) just as things start looking a bit brighter for me and my blogs (including some antipsychiatry entries), this happens, on top of it all I am known to be a fundamentalist and the terrorist, at the time of the crime Free-Mason, is precisely falsely and hastily alleged to be a "Christian Fundamentalist"?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Paris-Les Halles

29-XI-2011

PS, this is also - including the 77 victims - after French police manage to make psychiatry and psychiatry friendly or psychiatric prejudices look bad by a shooting in France:

Media coverage of his death was minimal, as he died on 22 November 1963 – the same day that U.S. President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, and the same day another famous author, Aldous Huxley, died. ... On 22 November 1963 Lewis collapsed in his bedroom at 5:30 pm and died a few minutes later, one week before his 65th birthday.

5:30 pm Greenwich timezone=Central Time 11:30 am*

12:30 pm Central Time=Greewich Timezone

On his deathbed, unable to speak, Huxley made a written request to his wife Laura for "LSD, 100 µg, intramuscular". According to her account of his death in This Timeless Moment, she obliged with an injection at 11:45 am and another a couple of hours later. He died, aged 69, at 5:20 pm on 22 November 1963, several hours after the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

After? What timezone was that? LA, yes, that figures.

Shooting Kennedy cannot have been done to distract media coverage from Huxleys death, he died after Kennedy. But shooting Kennedy can have been done to distract media coverage from C. S. Lewis' death. Why would anyone do that? C S L's murderer? But, to all and any probability he was not murdered. Kennedy was. The effect - or one of them - of Kennedy's murder was to make media not cover C. S. L's death. Can it have been the intended one?

An Illuminati drop out or self claimed such claimed C. S. L. was bought by them, he had been making paychecks himself. So, what if they gave him gifts - he did toast to American benefactors - in order to make anyone inolved with them or knowing them well enough to do so despair about C. S. L. and by extention his positions, dangerous enough for them. Or what if they failed to do so and revenge themselves by either faking a drop out or blackmailing him to spread a lie?

For one thing, he claimed that not burning witches is only a progress if one does not believe in witchcraft. I e, if there is real witchcraft, they deserve execution. For another thing, he believed, possibly that witchcraft was at least thinkable. For a third, he energically encouraged a retour** to Christianity as understood by Centuries that would have nothing to do with Luciferanism and similar ideologies. And if he did not himself encourage Inquisition - see Reply to Professor Haldane - some of the earlier Christian men he looked back to did.

Now, the maybe best known*** case against both Inquisition and Catholicism, by extension Traditional Christianity as such, was the Galileo case. What if heliocentrism, what he was put in house arrest for, with gentle treatment, simply is not true? C. S. L. thought it true, as can be seen from Out of a Silent Planet (though that is fiction). But he also thought a principle true which if applied to the opposite, geocentrism, is not very good for heliocentrism. I cite Peter Kreeft, who has written a whole novel about the fact that C. S. L. died a little earlier than J. F. Kennedy and Aldous Huxley.

The term "chronological snobbery" comes from C.S. Lewis (to my mind the clearest and most useful Christian writer since Thomas Aquinas) in his autobiography Surprised by Joy, where he gives his friend Owen Barfield credit for inventing it.

Lewis defines and refutes it at once as

the uncritical assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited. You must find out why it went out of date. Was it ever refuted (and if so by whom, where, and how conclusively) or did it merely die away as fashions do? If the latter, this tells us nothing about its truth or falsehood.

.... (Surprised by Joy, pp. 207-208).

Someone who wants us to believe Galileo was right and witches good physicians and Inquisitors super bastards would not be quite happy to see this applied to Geocentrism. Any more than he would like the presuppositions - anti-supranaturalist - that exclude witchcraft from being a fake accusation to be put into doubt.

So, yes, I think they counted C. S. Lewis as dangerous, that "paying him" - he was from his p o v not being paid but receivig gifts, with gratitude, a Christian thing / or it was a lie (the gifts he really thanked for coming from elsewhere) - was part of their strategy, that killing off media coverage was part of their strategy too, and that killing Kennedy was part of that part of their strategy. Paranoid enough to write detective novels? Maybe so, I was just thinking about that story of Chesterton, The Broken Sword. "To make a forest to hide a leaf is a heinous sin" ... I will not name (I have in fact forgotten his name which was probably fictional anyway) the officer in that story who deliberately gets slowly defeated so the corpses around him hide the corpse he made. But in some cases there can be other motives than making a certain corpse to hide it behind other corpses, if not a forest at least a President and a Colleague. C. S. L. had been so cultified already, if I may coin a word which is ugly but expresses their Screwtapish p o v to perfection. Their=that of Illuminati.

Now, as with a murder just before Midsummer, I am not at all equipped to lead an investigation on whether it was really Illuminati (in that case a kind of sacrifice***) or not. I can just "blow the whistle" by writing this. Hoping someone in some police department in France was honest last summer and someone else was honest ad observant in the JFK investigation.

vendredi 18 novembre 2011

"Unlike Buddhists and Hindus, Christians have usually held that the good things of this life are good indeed, that all enjoyment is a foreshadowing of our ultimate enjoyment of God. Our earthly loves and joys are meant to lead us to Christ, and we may certainly ask the Christ in whom we believe to preserve them for us. Yet this is very different from using Christ without believing in Him-from making Christian doctrine into a propaganda weapon, a pep talk to hearten us to go out and fight for good old materialism. We must return to Christianity in order to preserve the things we value-but we cannot return to Christianity at all unless the thing we value above all else is Christ. If we are reviving religion only in order to defend our own works, from Parliamentary democracy to Yorkshire pudding, we are in effect asking Christ to save our idols for us."

Joy Davidman Lewis, Smoke on the Mountain, Chapter 2.

She made the case against Anders Behring Breivik pretty clear here. Her husband - whom I have been reading much more often than this one book of hers - might have thunk she made it against Franco too. Maybe, in the end, she did. Or maybe not. What is clear is that she did not make it against the men who died singing Cara al Sol - or not against all of them, not against what they did in common - while they fought off Azaña. That was as good a deed as fighting off Antiochus Epiphanes and Gorgias.

Either way, today is the date when Franco died in 1975, as well as the date when José Antonio died in 1936.

If I am not going to the Mass that is said for them (I still might) in St Nicolas du Chardonnet this evening, it is not because I do not care for them, or for their cause, which was, against Azaña, just. Nor is it because I share her views on the Eucharist: I believe what the Catholic Church believes and has believed about this, and that she was mistaken. It was not just Trent that condemned the error of Zwingli, but Iassy and Jerusalem too. It was not about the universal act of eating that God told his disciples "for this is my body". Rather, in St John's Gospel, Our Lord has put things straight: "for my flesh is real food".

It is because I have a hunch that they have idolatrously (in spirit, not in actual prescribed prayers but in the intentions) tried to manipulate God against me, against what I want, to be fair it is probably because they would consider or up to now have considered my use of the internet as an act of idolatry in precisely the sense sketched out by Joy Davidman in this essay. And so far God has not shown me He intends to defend my earthly happiness against this. He has, however, defended me from being a real heretic I think, and from going mad or thinking I have gone mad so as to make me a dependent on psychiatry with its evil works of idolatry.

Howso, in what sense?

"Nor does the idol's continued silence teach you better sense, if you're a natural-born idolater. For if Mumbo-Jumbo is so hard* to please, what a very great Mumbo-Jumbo he must be !"

That is about the psychiatric attitude to mental illness. If anyone will defend DSMH IV from the charge of being a Talmud losing connexion with the Torah, an idolatrous demonisation of states innocent in themselves or not as bad as psychiatrists paint them, let him do so. But not by making my life or those of my dear ones a misery, as has been the case. It is like Krafft Ebbing** in a way: he was right to say sodomy is wrong, but wrong to go on condemning this and that act of natural coitus as stemming from a mentality close to that leading to acceptance of - passive - sodomy. If you compare the thickness of "Psychopathologia Sexualis" to what the Bible or St Thomas Aquinas** have to say about "sins against nature" it is obvious how Krafft Ebbing makes as bad blunders as superstitious or prejudiced judgers of other men's mental and physical virility. "Oh, if he had balls he would be working his ass off!" or "If he had balls, and really had wanted that girl, he would not have let her treat him like that" and such idiocies. As if sodomitic preferences were due to lack of balls, rather than presence of idolatry! I mean, if a man has so little testosterone that he feels female in presence of that other man, he can do two quite non-sodomitic things about it: leave the company or fight. When hindered to do either, he can pray. If he is a Christian that is. Or again, as if a male sodomite doing the active part and dominating "his boyfriend" were a most charming and respectable person, considering he does not lack balls. Unfortunately, I am not quite sure St Nicolas du Chardonnet is quiet free from that attitude.*** they are too close to the French army and police - who are too close to a pedagogic virility cult, where "pédé" is an insult intended to provoke someone to increase his testosterone level. I think it might have come with Physical Education teachers of the Third Republic, at least in that great contact with public mentality over here.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Bibl. Château d'Eau

18-XI-2011

* Mis-"printed" as bard on site. Restituting h- is pretty obvious.

** Thank Causette for bringing up Krafft Ebbing. Unfortunately that paper is writing as if his condemnation of Sodomy - and other acts separating intentionally rather than accidentally sex from procreation - was part of his heretic spirit. Confer St Thomas on accidental infertility of ejaculation: http://newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article5 and deliberate: http://newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article11 - all of the questio 154, most of which deals with unjust acts which Krafft Ebbing might still have considered "normal" is much shorter than Psychopathologia Sexualis, and should remain so.

*** I have not yet read what the bishop of Paris has to say on the subject, but I think his heresy on the matter might be even worse. When asked why "persons with homosexual attraction" could not marry, in "L'1visible" this year (April, I think), he answered about why same sexed "couples" could not. As if persons with same sex attraction were unable to make anything but partnerships in sodomy! I have not yet read his fuller treatment of same subject, though invited to do so. That is (unless I have judged him hastily) where Church men today bow down to psychological expertise, instead of bowing down to God, who, through St Paul, revealed that sodomy is a punishment for - hear, hear, Joy Davidman Lewis! - idolatry.

mercredi 16 novembre 2011

... where in 2007 I was surprised to find that apart from "azavtani", the other, Aramaic form would have been "tabaqsani".

So, for some years, I have been wondering why Our Lord used a spoonerism on the Cross, and come up with a pious and ingenious explanation, which all the time was not needed. Here is, anyway, the present state of one of the articles, when I look back at it:

Eli Eli lema sabachthani (Ηλει Ηλει λεμα σαβαχθανει)

Main article: Sayings of Jesus on the cross </wiki/Sayings_of_Jesus_on_the_cross>

And at the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, "Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, my God, for what have you forsaken me?"

This phrase, shouted by Jesus from the cross, is given to us in these two versions. The Matthean version of the phrase is transliterated in Greek as ηλι ηλι λιμα σαβαχθανει. The Markan version is ελωι ελωι λιμα σαβαχθανει (elōi rather than il-ee and supposedly lama rather than lema).

Overall, both versions appear to be Aramaic rather than Hebrew because of the verb שבק (šbq) "abandon", which is originally Aramaic.[20][22] The "pure" Biblical Hebrew counterpart to this word, עזב (`zb) is seen in the first line of Psalm </wiki/Psalm> 22, which the saying appears to quote. Thus, Jesus is not quoting the canonical Hebrew version (êlî êlî lâmâ `azabtânî); he may be quoting the version given in an Aramaic Targum </wiki/Targum> (surviving Aramaic Targums do use šbq in their translations of the Psalm 22 [23]).

The Markan word for "my god", ελωι, definitely corresponds to the Aramaic form אלהי, elāhî. The Matthean one, ηλι, fits in better with the אלי of the original Hebrew Psalm, as has been pointed out in the literature; however, it may also be Aramaic, because this form is attested abundantly in Aramaic as well.[22][24] Curiously, already 4th century Church Father Epiphanius of Salamis </wiki/Epiphanius_of_Salamis> considered that êlî êlî was Hebrew and the rest of the sentence was in Aramaic.[25]

In the following verse, in both accounts, some who hear Jesus' cry imagine that he is calling for help from Elijah </wiki/Elijah> (Ēlīyāhū or Ēlīyā). This is perhaps to underline the incomprehension of the bystanders about what is happening. [Or rather a bystander insult?] This detail has been argued to fit in better with the Matthean version, since êlî seems somewhat more prone to be confused with Ēlīyā(hū) than ělāhî does.[22][26]

Almost all ancient Greek manuscripts show signs of trying to normalize this text. For instance, the peculiar Codex Bezae </wiki/Codex_Bezae> renders both versions with ηλι ηλι λαμα ζαφθανι (ēli ēli lama zaphthani). The Alexandrian, Western and Caesarean textual families all reflect harmonization of the texts between Matthew and Mark. Only the Byzantine textual tradition preserves a distinction.

The Aramaic word form šəbaqtanî is based on the verb šəbaq/šābaq, 'to allow, to permit, to forgive, and to forsake', with the perfect tense ending -t (2nd person singular: 'you'), and the object suffix -anî (1st person singular: 'me').

SHYLOCK What, are there masques? Hear you me, Jessica: Lock up my doors; and when you hear the drum And the vile squealing of the wry-neck'd fife, 30 Clamber not you up to the casements then, Nor thrust your head into the public street To gaze on Christian fools with varnish'd faces, But stop my house's ears, I mean my casements: Let not the sound of shallow foppery enter My sober house. By Jacob's staff, I swear, I have no mind of feasting forth to-night: But I will go. Go you before me, sirrah; Say I will come. ......SHYLOCK The patch is kind enough, but a huge feeder; Snail-slow in profit, and he sleeps by day More than the wild-cat: drones hive not with me; Therefore I part with him, and part with him To one that would have him help to waste 50 His borrow'd purse. Well, Jessica, go in; Perhaps I will return immediately: Do as I bid you; shut doors after you: Fast bind, fast find; A proverb never stale in thrifty mind. [Exit] JESSICA Farewell; and if my fortune be not crost, I have a father, you a daughter, lost.